A Voice of Reason: Sane Views for a Crazy World

April 2, 2007

The “What the Hell On Terror”

Great post, by My Errant Mind

In this post he really hits some nails on the head.  What the WOT is becoming is another euphemism, akin to the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs.  Until this nation shows it is taking this “war” seriously, it will have many problems, and will lose support, as it does even today.  Wars are not euphemisms.

To sum up his points:

What Is Wrong With The Global ‘What The Hell?’ On Terror?

  • The war is being paid lip-service.
  • Action is not being taken to win the war.
  • Unnecessarily expending the lives of good fighting men.
  • Needless social trauma that can and should be avoided.
  • Cowardly failure to identify the enemies clearly and comprehensively and stick to that definition.
  • A concerted effort to prolong the war by the military-industrial complex.
  • Weak governments let international opinion dictate action instead of their security needs.
  • Sovereignty of nations is being weakened.
  • Values are being compromised to secure aid from dubious governments we should be at war with.
  • We allow inept and cowardly generals and politicians to continue breeding.
  • We are not holding our leaders accountable.
  • None of our leaders are truly worth following.

It is long past time to either fight this damn war the way it needs to be, or call it quits. The longer it continues, the more we are sowing the seeds of future wars.

That is, however, just what the military-industrial complex wants.

I would add securing our borders as another thing that is wrong with the “WOT”

7 Comments »

  1. Hi a,

    I’d say the problem is in two parts. One, we are winning, more or less. If there had been another successful strike on the US, the general public would be fully behind our Homeland Security efforts. However, since they feel safe, American Idol is more important. Second, is the liberal Democrat effort, supported by the liberal press, to separate the war in Iraq from the general war on terrorism. This makes the situation too complex for people to go with their instinctive feeling to protect ourselves and strike back.

    the Grit

    Comment by the Grit — April 2, 2007 @ 8:49 pm | Reply

  2. If there was another hit on US soil the Administration would be blamed, and their policies would also have been.

    America as well as most Western Democracies hate war – and this is not usually a bad quality – since we value human life. However, our enemies will use this against us, as they don’t as a culture place the same premium on life.

    All you have to do is look at history and it tells the tale. This is why the Terrorists will always have some advantage; due to their lack of care if they die.

    Comment by Avoiceofreason — April 2, 2007 @ 9:30 pm | Reply

  3. Second, is the liberal Democrat effort, supported by the liberal press, to separate the war in Iraq from the general war on terrorism.

    This is important. The fact that al-Quaeda has pitched tent in Iraq, that Iran is involved, that pretty much every terrorist-sponsoring neighboring state is involved indicates rather clearly to me that THEY all see Iraq as mattering in the WOT. You want to beat some sense into the American public with a stick sometimes.

    Comment by hydralisk — April 3, 2007 @ 2:18 am | Reply

  4. The problem is part of the perception of the general public, but also the way the war has been framed. The culture that our country has is not willing to deal with any inconveniences, or interruptions to life going on normally.
    I would also hold that the war has been mismanaged on many levels. How certain issues were not addressed earlier, as in a few years back is beyond me. To much of life as normal, and no semblance of the nation being invested in this, other than something that pisses them off. This has become something that the general public figure Washington will take care of, and not realize that this is a national committment, or that one is needed in this conflict.

    Comment by avoiceofreason — April 3, 2007 @ 3:38 am | Reply

  5. I would disagree that none of our leaders are truly worth following, but that is another discussion for another time.

    I would add that people are failing to view this war through the context of history, especially in terms of how to win (needs to be less timid), and accepting casualties. It amazes me how much we agonize over the three thousand deaths of American troops. Sad, yes, and I am not trivializing those deaths. But, in the context of history, minute. Look at any major battle in the American past in any war, with the exception of the first two (Revolution and 1812) and you’ll find that these casualties over a three year period do not even add up.

    Comment by thelonedrifter — April 3, 2007 @ 4:45 am | Reply

  6. I agree that we are “Unnecessarily expending the lives of good fighting men.”

    I also agree that “The longer it continues, the more we are sowing the seeds of future wars.”

    This says a lot about what is wrong, but nothing about what should be done. Do you feel that the war in Iraq is a part of the WOT? If so, what should be done to finish this part of the war?

    What should be done in other places to finish this war?

    I was told once, never report a problem unless you have the solution. I’m not sure I 100% agree with that, but I don’t want to just stand around like chicken little saying the sky is falling.

    Comment by Randy — April 3, 2007 @ 1:33 pm | Reply

  7. I also agree that the number of losses is exagerated in the sense that they are in front of us due to the MSM. Something profound has changed in this nation’s ability to absorb hardship than had been true during Korea, as when you say WW2 you get the hand wringing.

    When these things are considered I’ll know the WOT is more than a euphemism:
    Reinstitution of the draft with no exmeptions into military or civil equivalent for three years
    Really sealing the borders
    Reorganization of the CIA and having it placed under control of the JCOS – Kennedy proposed this in 63 – The CIA has become far too political and have their own agenda.
    Linking trade status/aide to participation on this global issue – no help – no trade
    No negotiations with states that support or house terrorists – with active operations against them. The Cuba Policy – under the operation of the JCOS -not the CIA

    Comment by avoiceofreason — April 3, 2007 @ 6:07 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: